If a cancellation of provisional registration is null and void, a third party who has interests in the registration has a duty to accept the procedure for recovery registration, regardless of whether the third party has acted in bad faith.

Where a provisional registration is cancelled without the intention of the person entitled to make a registration and the cause of cancellation is null and void, a third party who has an interest in the registration is obligated to give consent necessary for the procedure for recovery registration of the person entitled to the provisional registration, notwithstanding good faith, bad faith, or existence of any loss caused by such recovery registration.

Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na1565 delivered on November 19, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na1565 delivered on November 19, 1969

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

As to each of the Defendants’ legal representatives’ grounds of appeal No. 1

Based on the evidence stated in the original judgment, the judgment on title trust in the theory of original judgment is not acceptable, and it cannot be readily determined that there was an error in the process of its recognition, and the legal principles on the acquisition of real rights cannot be recognized because there was no registration in the plaintiff's name, and thus, it cannot be determined by misapprehending the legal principles on the change in real rights, which recognized that the title trust with the above non-party 1 was in the title trust in the name of the plaintiff's name instead of the plaintiff's name, and as long as the title trust is effective only in the internal relationship between the truster and the trustee, and as long as the provisional registration was made to preserve the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer due to the termination of the trust, the legal principles that can claim the right due to the provisional registration against the third party are not adopted.

The Defendants’ ground of appeal No. 2 of the largest leap Syun Kim Byung-syun,

If a provisional registration is cancelled without the intention of the person having the right to the provisional registration and the cause of cancellation is null and void, the third party having an interest in the registration shall be interpreted as having a duty to give consent necessary for the procedure for recovery registration of the person having the right to the provisional registration, notwithstanding the intention of the person having the right to the provisional registration or the degree of

The issue is groundless.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 as above;

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 2

The appellate court's decision that the withdrawal of the appeal is made by the plaintiff company, which is the appellant, was reversed by the court of final appeal and remanded to the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 69Da944, Dec. 30, 1969; 69Da944, Dec. 30, 1969). In addition, the issue of whether the withdrawal of appeal is made by the plaintiff's death is determined due to the deliberation and decision, and thus, the decision of the court of first instance is not based on the intention of the appellant, and the withdrawal of appeal is not determined by the decision of the court of first instance, and it does not affect the conclusion of the decision of the court of first instance, and the provisional registration registration procedure is not concluded to be impossible to implement because the withdrawal of appeal is effective, and the procedure of provisional registration is not determined to be non-party 2's consent, and the plaintiff

The issue is either groundless or groundless.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet